Speeches

Mr President, the fight against all forms of violence against women and children is one of my struggles during this term of office, and I am delighted that we have finally reached an agreement on such a serious issue. I would also like to recall some figures. More than half of women in the EU have already experienced sexual harassment. One in three women has experienced physical or sexual violence. I therefore welcome this text, which aims to strengthen prevention and protection measures. Genital mutilation, forced marriage and many forms of cyberviolence will be criminalized. Every effort must be made to end impunity for violent and sexual acts, both online and offline. However, I regret the lack of measures to stop the arrival of massive, irregular and unassimilated immigration on European soil, which poses a serious threat to the security of our fellow citizens. I would like to take as an example the figures compiled by the Paris prefecture of police, which, to our detractors’ displeasure, are a sad and harsh reality. Indeed, 77% of the rapes known and committed in the streets of Paris are perpetrated by individuals of foreign nationality. However, this Directive is the first such comprehensive legal instrument at EU level. We will therefore vote in favour, together with my colleagues from the Rassemblement national.

Mr President, the Commission Work Programme for 2024 remains fragmented compared to its previous commitments, in particular those on the phasing out of cages. This reform alone would benefit more than 300 million animals, provided that it guards against two perverse effects. On the one hand, all meat imports, including from Ukraine, must comply with EU standards, otherwise we will only have shifted the problem and ruined our breeders. On the other hand, it is imperative to reduce the density of animals on the ground. I therefore supported this call for a clear timetable for reforming the welfare of productive animals, the way they are slaughtered, and finally imposing labelling that will give consumers freedom of choice. All these complementary issues would benefit from being dealt with together rather than separately. We must avoid a scattering of texts, which would then become inapplicable. We talk, we debate, decisions drag on or don’t happen. Can you sleep when every day, every minute, every second, millions of animals suffer multiple and terrible abuses? We're talking about lives here. What consideration do you give them?

Mr President, I am delighted that we can vote for a genuine text in favour of women’s rights in this institution, which is often disconnected from the challenges faced by women, such as the growing insecurity linked to the spread of multiculturalism, throughout Europe. In a European Union where more than one in three women has experienced some form of physical or sexual violence and where one third of women have faced sexual harassment in the workplace, this Convention has the laudable objective of combating all forms of harassment and violence in the workplace. Beyond the cardinal objective of this text, I wanted to welcome, on the one hand, the desire to ensure easy access to mechanisms and procedures for reporting and dispute settlement and, on the other hand, the implementation requested from the Member States of measures to protect complainants, victims, witnesses and whistleblowers against reprisals. These measures are essential to ensure the sustainability of the proposed mechanisms. Together with my colleagues from the Identity and Democracy Group, we will therefore of course vote in favour of this text.

Mr President, Commissioner, I wanted to begin this speech by pointing out some improvements over the texts of previous years. Indeed, this resolution includes the need to tackle harmful traditional practices such as child marriages, forced marriages or genital mutilation, which, I would remind you, are imported into our soil. I also welcome the will to improve working conditions in the predominantly female health and care sector. I also note that this resolution finally proposes the strengthening of infertility treatments, while we keep warning about the decline of the European birth rate and its dramatic consequences for the survival of our civilisation and our social security systems. These measures represent an ideological victory for our political group and our Members, who are fighting to find solutions to situations that we have been denouncing for far too long. On the other hand, these resolutions proposed by the European Parliament systematically miss out on real priorities for women's rights. Not a word about increasing insecurity across Europe, massive and uncontrolled immigration, radical Islam and its severe impact on women, who are the first victims. Not a word either to improve the safety of public transport in cities and rural areas, while 87% of women say they have already been victims of harassment or sexual violence in transport in France. It is clear that the European Union is often more focused on putting a gender perspective in all its policies, including budgeting, rather than addressing the root causes. Our political group has therefore tabled amendments that take up the major challenges faced by women and remind the European Union of the absolute need to respect the competences of the Member States.

Madam President, Europeans are suffering the consequences of the European Union's poor responses to the various crises we are going through, especially women, who are the hardest hit. Crises that could have been an opportunity to learn from past mistakes to restore the sovereignty of the Member States, strengthen their cooperation and improve the well-being of their citizens who call for these structural changes. The deputies of the Rassemblement National keep warning, on the one hand, about the need to lift the sanctions on gas and oil imports, which have dramatic consequences on the purchasing power of Europeans and, on the other hand, about the urgency of freeing us from the absurd rules of the European energy market that lead in particular to the bill of electricity and gas of the French. Against this backdrop, the Central Bank found nothing better to do than dramatically raise interest rates in 2022, making it difficult for low-income households to access housing and property. Bien que l'objectif louable de ce texte soit de réduire les conséquences du coût de la vie et de la crise énergétique pour les femmes, je déplore que les solutions proposées ne permettent pas de remédier aux conséquences profondes de ces crises, qu'elles soient teintées d'idéologie «woke» et qu'elles s'immiscent dans la politique des États membres.

Mr President, as a member of the Committee on Women's Rights, I wanted to speak about what women suffered in this attack. Yesterday morning, May Golan, Israel’s Minister for the Advancement of the Status of Women, spoke for the first time in a French media outlet to testify about the abuses and sexual violence perpetrated on her fellow citizens by Hamas terrorists. The description of the facts committed is nightmarish: some women had broken ribs, others had their breasts cut, or had their sexual organs mutilated. According to his claims, the videos that document these acts are unsustainable. During this speech, May Golan revolted at the total indifference of feminist and human rights associations and organisations around the world. None of those institutions even deigned to respond to its numerous requests. This silence is particularly shameful. In the European Parliament, combating violence against women is one of the priorities. We must therefore, here more than anywhere else, strongly condemn all the abuse suffered by these women and girls. It is our duty to denounce these traumatic and barbaric acts. Finally, we have all heard the poignant testimonies of hostage families. I wanted to give them my full support. International cooperation must do everything possible to speed up the release of these hostages.

Madam President, after a life of misery in cramped cages, fur animals are gassed, electrocuted, poisoned or hanged before being skinned, sometimes still conscious. Beyond this abomination, these farms also present a danger of developing zoonotic diseases. Indeed, mammals bred for their fur easily contract pneumonia. These viral diseases can mutate and contaminate humans. Last August, the Finnish authorities had to order the slaughter of 120 000 foxes and minks to stem an outbreak of avian influenza transmitted by wild birds. Recall that H5N1, more than 50% lethal, could mutate or recombine with another virus. Faced with this ticking time bomb, I call on the European Commission to ban the breeding, import and marketing of animal fur products on the European market. It will thus be able to eliminate animal suffering, comply with its commitment to gradually ban the rearing of animals in cages and, finally, avoid a possible pandemic.

Mr President, Commissioner, as has been said – and underlined – at the moment, the Commissioner’s 2024 work programme again rejects any reform on animal welfare, with the exception of the transport of live animals. Most revisions to animal welfare legislation are therefore abandoned. However, the Commission had undertaken to propose the same revisions. It had also undertaken to take into account the impact studies which it had itself commissioned. Finally, it had committed to work towards the gradual abandonment of cages following the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’. These initiatives, while not a substitute for the referendum, are nevertheless the only instrument of direct democracy in European law. I therefore hope that the European Commission will take over and not weaken the democratic expression tool of European citizens’ initiatives. Otherwise, citizens will feel confused, and the Commission's word will be irreparably discredited.

Madam President, this text calls for making transport safer for women by relevant means such as sufficient public lighting, bus stops in visible places, the presence of alarm signals and staff on board buses or the possibility of dropping off on demand at night, which is an excellent thing. However, I would like to recall some alarming figures to describe the daily lives of millions of women. In France, 87% of women using public transport have already experienced harassment, sexual assault or rape; 54% say they do not take transport at certain times and many of us have avoidance strategies in place. In 2022, on public transport in Île-de-France, 69% of those accused of theft or violence and 62% of those accused of sexual assault were of foreign origin. So I have a question: How can we claim to fight against insecurity in public transport without ever mentioning the main source of the problem, massive and uncontrolled immigration to our territories? However, this text has the laudable objective of improving access and safety for women, including carers, mothers and those with reduced mobility. I would also like to underline the desire to develop infrastructure for people with reduced mobility, particularly in rural and outermost areas, which are still ill-adapted to their disability. For example, in the region where I live in France, Transiliens are not at all designed to make it possible for people with disabilities to board. It is therefore important to address this. It is for these reasons, among others, that we will vote in favour of this text, which provides solutions on this too often neglected subject.

Mr President, this report on the regulation of prostitution in the European Union seeks to harmonise the different laws of the Member States on the so-called ‘Nordic’ or ‘abolitionist’ model, which consists of decriminalising prostitutes and criminalising clients. However, this model, adopted in France in 2016, still does not seem to prove itself, because prostitution persists, evolves on the Internet and now affects more and more minors. Worse still, feminist associations are warning that the criminalization of clients is pushing prostituted women to adopt risky behaviors that accentuate their isolation and stigmatization. Beyond the debate on the legalisation of prostitution and the recognition of sex worker status, we must not be dogmatistic in this regard and let the Member States choose which model of society suits them. However, we must not confuse voluntary prostitution with trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation, which must be combated at European level. Work is also ongoing to ensure better protection for victims, with the revisions of the directives against trafficking in human beings and their protection, as well as the adoption of a directive on combating violence against women. This is a subject that we must not let go of and on which we must continue to be vigilant.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, I shall ask you briefly about your future arbitrations also in the field of animal welfare. Your services normally make their copy around November, but the press indicates that the package of proposals on animal welfare could be sent back to the next Commission, i.e. after the European elections. I would therefore like to know whether the recasting of animal welfare legislation will be effective. Like many citizens, I want it to take place and include breeding, transport, slaughter and labelling. Various European citizens' initiatives such as "No fur in Europe" or "For a Europe without animal testing" have been very successful. Animal welfare is therefore also a topic that matters to Europeans. Does it also matter to you, Madam President?

Mr President, the lack of transparency on the part of the European institutions reached its peak in 2021, when the Commission refused to properly search for the texts exchanged between the President of the Commission and the CEO of Pfizer. In addition to the administrative complaints pending before the European Ombudsman and the CJEU, we are also informed in this case that Mr Baldan, an accredited Belgian lobbyist, has lodged a complaint with the Belgian courts directly against the President of the European Commission. The consequence is unprecedented, since Pfizer’s immunity could be waived and the texts exchanged with the President of Pfizer could be consulted by the investigating judge in charge of the case. Justice will have to determine whether Ms von der Leyen acted outside the EU Treaties and her mandate, and whether these SMS exchanges are part of a privileged relationship between the two protagonists, which would constitute a clear conflict of interest. This case is emblematic of the way ahead for the European executive in the level of transparency of contracts and the decision-making process, as opacity in this area necessarily undermines citizens’ trust.

Madam President, experiments on animals to test cosmetics have been banned since 2013. But in 2020, the Commission, in the Symrise cases, forced manufacturers to test cosmetic components on animals by invoking the REACH Regulation. So we need to get out of the rut. I have already had the opportunity to present solutions to the Commission, including the possibility for the European Chemicals Agency to self-certify alternative methods to animal testing, with immediate effect. The possibility also for the European Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing to approve its methods, again with immediate effect. I went last Tuesday to this laboratory which is located in Italy, in Ispra. These methods are numerous – toxicogenomics, organs on chips and models of reconstructed skin, bioprinting, computer modelling or simulation of neurological mechanisms. Today, science is advancing faster than law. Alternative methods are developing and are recognized as reliable. What prevents the replacement of animal testing is the inertia of the law and, admittedly, the inertia of the European Commission. More than one million citizens have their eyes on you and are waiting for answers. You can't ignore them.

Mr President, the , as has been mentioned before me, consists of cutting up the fin of the living shark before throwing its body into the sea. It is a barbaric practice that is not part of our customs and customs. This is why, in Europe, it has been banned since 2013. Yet the EU is still one of the largest exporters of shark fins. The European Commission is once again very permissive with regard to the real drifts of industrial fishing. It is sometimes far too busy imposing untenable standards on our small-scale fishermen. Yet it is they who ensure our food sovereignty and not the industrial vessels that export fins to Asia. It is therefore time for the Commission to act against this cruel, illegal and harmful fishing for the ecosystem. To accept this practice is to be complicit in this cruelty. Thank you, Commissioner, for the decisions you will take to ban this cruel and unsustainable fishery.

Mr President, this report mirrors most of the texts we vote in the European Parliament: It has laudable goals, but often disconnected from reality. We cannot judge a text by its title: we need to assess it in its entirety. How are we going to explain to our business leaders who are struggling to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and are being swept away by commodity price inflation that we are now going to put them under administrative paperwork? You claim to protect our European small and medium-sized enterprises as you try to impose more and more standards on them. Publication of information, production of reports of all types or shifting the burden of proof to the employer. We will abstain on this text, because while we support and hope to achieve this goal of equal pay for men and women, we cannot accept that our entrepreneurs are the victims of such decisions.

Madam President, in order to save bees and farmers, and I would add consumers, pesticides must be reduced, which requires replacing them with agroecological techniques such as crop mixing and longer rotations in order to limit the development of pests; restoration of the bocage to favour useful predators; biocontrol to promote natural pest enemies and use plant or pheromone biopesticides, or service plants to control insects and parasitic fungi or weeds. These techniques exist but are nevertheless costly. They are therefore in principle eligible for aid under the new common agricultural policy. But does the EU, through the CAP, verify that sufficient funds reach farmers? I have put the question to the Commission and the answer is disappointing. According to the Commission, the eco-schemes under the new CAP depend primarily on the commitment of the Member States. It is regrettable that the most ecologically virtuous farmers are not financially supported. Yet it is the survival of the entire ecosystem that depends on it.

Mr President, in this resolution I am sorry to see that you have overshadowed certain priorities for women. The text we are going to vote on is partly disconnected from the daily lives of women and girls. Indeed, not a word about increasing insecurity in Europe, street harassment or radical Islam, factors aggravated by massive and uncontrolled immigration. Nor does the resolution mention the difficult working conditions of female-dominated professions in certain sectors, such as care or education, the precariousness of some mothers or the complex balance between work and family life. At a time when, in France, Emmanuel Macron, under pressure from the European Union, is trying to reform the pension system, no solution is proposed to revive the birth rate of European women. With the ID group, we have tabled an alternative resolution, which takes up the major issues for women. But, as every year, it will certainly not be put to the vote. It is clear that you may often focus more on putting the gender perspective into all EU policies rather than tackling some crucial issues.

Madam President, I am delighted that an agreement has finally been reached for the adoption of the directive on the participation of women on boards. I invite you to support this reasonable text put to the vote today, which aims to give the Member States the necessary means to achieve a more balanced representation of men and women among the directors of companies listed on stock exchanges. This directive is a strong signal for women to get involved in decision-making processes. This increased involvement is an indispensable vehicle for ensuring better corporate governance, both in terms of performance and evolution. This directive, supported by MEPs from the National Rally, will allow Member States to accelerate progress in this area and set an example for the different spheres of power that make up our societies.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate we have today is unfortunately more topical than ever, as we learn with horror of the torment suffered by little Lola just a few days ago in France. So yes, it is high time to effectively combat sexual violence, starting with violence against our children. Just last week, I met determined women who had the courage to testify about the sexual abuse committed by powerful men who have acted with impunity for decades. Sexual predators protected by the omerta can commit their misdeeds undisturbed, especially in the spheres of power. And I would like to take as an example the recent cases of the European institutions and modelling agencies. The culture of silence is responsible for the impunity of the aggressors. It is time to put an end to it. It is a moral and social issue.

Madam President, this regulation aims to reduce the impact on the environment and human health of the use of batteries. That is why we will support it. In addition, by increasing our requirements, especially for electric vehicle batteries, we will avoid misleading advertising that portrays these vehicles as more virtuous than they are. This will significantly improve consumer information in this area. The targets for the reuse and recycling of batteries or the reuse of raw materials are ambitious. This text is also a step towards the interoperability of all types of batteries. This will, on the one hand, allow consumers to save money – since they will be able to reuse these batteries and keep the appliances – and, on the other hand, reduce waste by creating standards that facilitate recycling. In this context, we also support the necessary increase in targets for the collection of used batteries. Furthermore, I would like to thank the rapporteur for taking into account the amendments that I and other colleagues have tabled in favour of a deposit system for batteries. The Commission will study the feasibility and value of this system and I welcome this progress. Despite these positive points, there are several negative aspects to note. In the regulation, in particular, we can only regret the failure to take serious account of the tragedy of child labour. Tens of thousands of children work in cobalt mining for battery production. At a time when a European regulation is addressing the conditions for the production of batteries, we cannot turn a blind eye. Amendments from the ID Group will propose that you refuse child labour for the production of batteries used in Europe. By your votes, I invite you to support them. Finally, while we share the objectives of this ambitious text for the development of sustainable batteries and the reuse of their raw materials, we question the realism of massive and rapid electrification. The electrification of heating modes, but especially of vehicles in Europe, will require the production of hundreds of terawatt-hours of additional electricity in the coming years. And the consequences of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis will also weigh on energy supply. The power generation capacities of our nations will have to be multiplied. How do you plan to deal with this demand? It is not the role of this text, of course, to answer this question, but, as we know, making batteries clean for charging with coal-fired power plants is nonsense.

Mr President, your proposed action plan aims to make the European Union the voice of women's rights in the world. When it comes to fighting femicide, child marriage, genital mutilation, human trafficking and sexual violence, I fully share and support these goals. This text, however, seems to me ideological and raises questions. Indeed, its main objective is to require that 85% of all new EU external actions have gender equality as an important or main objective. First of all, international relations are primarily the prerogative of sovereign states. Secondly, let us ask ourselves whether almost all international aid from the European Union should be made conditional on action to promote gender equality. While advancing women’s rights is undoubtedly a key challenge, it is not the only one that is desirable. Thus, objectives that must be linked to development aid, such as the control of demography or migration or the protection of the environment, will be relegated to the background. Moreover, the increase in the EU’s budgets for international aid, in parallel – and sometimes contradictory – to the action of the Member States and their diplomacy, is not necessarily desirable. It is even less so when it is ideological. Thus, the text denounces conservative discourse, i.e. the right to oppose gender theories. At the same time, while in Europe and around the world the rise of radical Islam is a strong threat to women, their freedoms and their rights, the text does not devote a word to denouncing this issue.

Madam President, the mistreatment documented by animal welfare associations and relayed by the media, the appalling shipwrecks of trash cargo ships or the odysseys across all seas have moved our fellow citizens. They have their eyes on us, because this committee of inquiry is a unique opportunity to improve the fate of the animals transported. All political groups, more or less, now recognise that land and sea transport conditions not only do not comply with the 2005 Regulation, but are insufficient. Animals suffer from extreme temperatures, lack of water, food, space and hygiene, brutal acts during loading or unloading. Worse still, in the case of exports to third countries, particularly in the Middle East or North Africa. Indeed, arriving in these countries is the worst that awaits them. Some have pruned eyes or cut tendons and are subjected to cruel slaughter by slitting without stunning. We cannot claim to improve the fate of animals while allowing such atrocities to continue. It will therefore be the great merit of the ANIT Committee to have advocated numerous and detailed measures to improve the situation of the animals transported. These proposals must be followed by strong and concrete measures. The problem must also be addressed at the source. Long-distance transport within the European Union and exports to third countries stem from the development of intensive livestock farming. However, alternatives exist, such as the transport of meat, carcasses or genetic material, which has proven to be less expensive. The EU must promote these alternatives by providing financial support to the various actors so that they can have the necessary equipment. I will therefore vote in favour of these recommendations, but they do not go far enough. I therefore urge the European Commission to make a real transition to the transport of meat rather than live animals.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is high time to ban wild animals in circuses. Firstly, because the use of endangered species in circuses scuttles the fight against illegal trade and poaching. We cannot really control the origin of animals, nor control the births and deaths of these animals. There is also the issue of accidents regularly involving tamers, employees, or even the public. But there is above all the question of the mental and health suffering of these animals, because they are abused: abused by regular transport and conditions of captivity that do not allow them to satisfy their natural behaviour; abused also by training often carried out by force or deprivation of food; abused by their conditions of detention. It is enough to understand to see the animals turn in circles in their cage too cramped, when they are not simply chained. In France, the example of the Jumbo hippopotamus is emblematic. Hippos, by nature aquatic, need a sufficiently large and heated basin: water allows them to regulate their temperature, but also to relieve their joints, as their body is very massive. Yet a court decision chose to keep Jumbo in the circus that held him. The Maya elephant underwent 40 years of captivity in a circus that still forced her, despite her age and state of health, to adopt painful postures for her during shows. Her increasingly appalling physical condition led her to the brink of euthanasia. How can we remain insensitive? These conditions are sometimes so bad that animals are often medicated or even sedated. Add to this limited or, on the contrary, too many social interactions depending on the species and shows that inflict traumatic sound and light conditions on them. For all these reasons, this captivity of wild animals must be stopped. Such representations must be banned at European level, as many Member States have already done. In France, circus André Joseph Bouglione, having become aware of this terrible animal abuse, put on a magnificent show using hologram animals. This is the path we must now follow.

Mr President, fear must change sides, but the fight against sexual harassment must not turn into obsession or widespread suspicion. The taboo of reporting sexual harassment, especially in the workplace, must be broken, perpetrators must be punished, but let's stop considering men as a global threat. Your text states that gender-based violence originates in sexism, gender stereotypes and male domination and discrimination against women. I find this speech, which considers that there is permanent opposition between men and women in Europe and even widespread oppression of women by men, worrying and unfounded. There are cases of sexual harassment or abuse. This is serious and needs a strong response. Fortunately, however, these cases represent only a tiny minority of men. Considering men as all potential culprits leads to your proposal of mandatory training to re-educate all men who would all be deviant. This is not our conception. Almost all of the men we meet are neither oppressors nor dangers to us women. But not everything should become the new inquisition either. Victims must have the right to speak, and defendants the right to a defence. The media court must not replace the people’s court and call into question the presumption of innocence. While this text refers to the real problems of harassment within the European institutions, let us not lose sight of the daily lives of thousands of European women. To track down too many potential harassers within its walls, the EU should not turn a blind eye to the harassers on its streets: in my country, eight out of ten French women have already been harassed in public spaces, especially on the street or on public transport. Where are women most at risk? In the corridors of the European Parliament or in the neighbourhoods or entire cities of Europe, where their place is shrinking due to the migratory flooding organised by the European Union and the laxity of the national judicial system? The first place at risk for women is above all the public space. Moreover, while harassment issues at work are now widely known, denounced and combated, street harassment is increasing exponentially and remains totally unpunished. Let us combat harassment in the European institutions without falling into caricature and call on the Member States to take firm measures to ensure the safety and freedom of women everywhere in Europe.

Madam President, I very much regret not being able to vote in favour of this text, not being able to support the proposals on gender equality which, if they were not instrumentalised, should be able to obtain unanimity. Obviously, I support the objectives of ‘equal pay for equal work’, better care for maternity leave, additional measures to deal with domestic violence or the fight against trafficking in human beings. However, I regret certain excesses of this text when it explicitly condemns traditional family values, defends gender theory and condemns any opposition to these abuses. While I fully support women’s equal access to the labour market and decision-making positions, I also regret that the role and choice of women who have decided to be housewives or to work part-time is being devalued. For my part, I defend women’s free choice to work, to undertake, to carry out the activities they want, i.e. also to devote more time to their families if it is their choice of life. I also note that, listing the threats to women in Europe, the text does not say a word about the threat caused by the spread of radical Islam or its consequences. Finally, the text calls for the European institutions to interfere in the organisation of care systems, in social policies, in education policies and even in household taxation. These are fields of action which are by nature the competence of the Member States and which, for us, must absolutely remain so. It is above all this new federalist step to which, by our vote, we blindly refuse to subscribe.